Can we please relax about 'socialism?'

[Mims44 1,872]

13 hours ago, homersapien said:

Are you suggesting the easy availability of guns - including military designs - play no role in the (unique) number of gun deaths in our country?

I suggest you start a thread on gun policy.  No need to hijack this one.

It does, the matter to be discussed (for me) is how much do you value freedom or safety? 

13 hours ago, homersapien said:

After all, it's not the RPG that causes the problem, it's the person firing it.

This is near the argument I start off with for people 100% 2nd A. I wanna be able to house weaponized smallpox in mason jars and place them in my yard for home defense. If you don't think I should be allowed to do that, then you agree, at least somewhat to restrictions on the 2nd amendment. 

13 hours ago, homersapien said:

On 5/1/2019 at 8:06 PM, I_M4_AU said:

I wouldn’t mind owning a fully functional A4, I just could afford to operate and maintain it.  Then again, I doubt it is “legal” to own a fully functional A4 as it too. is fully automatic.

13 hours ago, homersapien said:

But why outlaw these weapons if they play no role in their use?

1st off: M4, you can own them legally... it's just a HUGE pain in the ass.

 

I would love it if these were more affordable. Not a right but a privilege. Being trained with M4/M16/M9's I feel most comfortable with their use. Thought the differences are minimal, to the point I would imagine only others that used the military equivalent for years would notice them... I would still like to be able to own them. Without going through all the paperwork and money.

 

 

[homersapien 11,388]

11 hours ago, Mikey said:

I am speaking for myself and many others. For those that don't find excessive wind-breaking via the written word dull, you have my condolences.

Of course you are.

And I am speaking for myself and "many others".  We actually understand the points being made and appreciate and enjoy the erudition in their expression.

[homersapien 11,388]

21 hours ago, maxwere said:

Yep, not to mention the fact that the isolation of autos turn us into lazy, impatient, insufferable, isolated, hyper-REACTIONARY ($2 to original article), narcissistic dix.  ...and I like my commute.

I think they are possible.  But realistically, we'll never know.  Private companies definitely deliver better local transportation.  Roads are just another producer good for a consumer industry like Uber.  If property/right of way was not strictly regulated, via nonuniform, archaic, bureaucratic process via local county govts (to say nothing of immanent domain), would you bet against Uber... or Amazon?  I wouldn't.  And whats so special about sewer and water infrastructure?  Some of it is 100 year old clay pipe.  Att recently laid the fiber behind my house.

I never cared much for the libertarian roads argument (for or against).  Its always been something I felt I could live with.  However, life experience (and comparative conveniences) has actually pushed me closer and closer to the "privatize the damn thing" camp.

Don't misunderstand.  I'm grateful for toilets and interstates.   Not that the public sector built them, but that we live in a time in history where we have enough capital and progress to allow such buffoons the right to give us over-funded, under-serviced benefits.  The ancients had no such luxury.

Still waiting on the business model that would compel private investment in basic infrastructure like roads and sewer systems.

We do have some history of such a business model regarding railroads in the late 1800's but I would point out that government was an integral part of enabling those models and the results were not necessarily of long term benefit for the general good.

[toddc 13,194]

On 5/1/2019 at 11:44 AM, I_M4_AU said:

the erosion of individual rights is the catalyst to a state owned government.  JMO.

 

This is exactly what is going on in the so-called “Democratic Socialism “ debate in our country, give an inch and they take an (right away) inch, and another inch....and another inch...

The article talks about extremism of some on the right, but some of the left is just as extreme ! One only has to look at the proposals from the Democratic Socialists today, and how extreme they are, to get a little spooked about where it’s headed.

Socialism by any other name...

This article does nothing to foster debate and was written by someone living in a bubble. It was written in a echo-chamber for those who agree with everything written. If the writer wanted to reach everyday people he wouldn’t use language that 99% of people don’t know the meaning, and because of that it sounds elitist and snobbish. imho 

 

[homersapien 11,388]

On 5/3/2019 at 12:22 AM, Mikey said:

I am speaking for myself and many others. For those that don't find excessive wind-breaking via the written word dull, you have my condolences.

Those who prefer writing composed at a 6th grade level or below have my condolences.

[homersapien 11,388]

On 5/3/2019 at 12:50 AM, Mims44 said:

It does, the matter to be discussed (for me) is how much do you value freedom or safety?

Our freedom is secured by political involvement.    Our safety does not depend on assault weapons - a shotgun or revolver does just fine. 

 

[homersapien 11,388]

22 hours ago, toddc said:

This is exactly what is going on in the so-called “Democratic Socialism “ debate in our country, give an inch and they take an (right away) inch, and another inch....and another inch...

The article talks about extremism of some on the right, but some of the left is just as extreme ! One only has to look at the proposals from the Democratic Socialists today, and how extreme they are, to get a little spooked about where it’s headed.

Socialism by any other name...

This article does nothing to foster debate and was written by someone living in a bubble. It was written in a echo-chamber for those who agree with everything written. If the writer wanted to reach everyday people he wouldn’t use language that 99% of people don’t know the meaning, and because of that it sounds elitist and snobbish. imho 

 

I don't get all this complaining about his language.  Aren't most of us university graduates?

 

[Mikey 16,625]

21 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I don't get all this complaining about his language.  Aren't most of us university graduates?

 

Yes. As such we can recognize BS for the sake of BS when we see it. I'm not surprised that the left has such an elitist in their ranks, it's a good fit.

[homersapien 11,388]

3 hours ago, Mikey said:

Yes. As such we can recognize BS for the sake of BS when we see it. I'm not surprised that the left has such an elitist in their ranks, it's a good fit.

I don't consider the mere use of an educated vocabulary to be elitist, so - assuming you can agree with that - I am interested to see what you consider to be the "BS" component. 

So, could you please provide an example from the piece in question?

(Or am I assuming too much?)

 

 

[Mikey 16,625]

20 hours ago, homersapien said:

I don't consider the mere use of an educated vocabulary to be elitist, so - assuming you can agree with that - I am interested to see what you consider to be the "BS" component. 

So, could you please provide an example from the piece in question?

(Or am I assuming too much?)

 

 

Go read it again. It's so filled with verbiage that any number of my Auburn professors would have handed it back to me with "unnecessary crap" scrawled across the top in red ink.

[homersapien 11,388]

5 hours ago, Mikey said:

Go read it again. It's so filled with verbiage that any number of my Auburn professors would have handed it back to me with "unnecessary crap" scrawled across the top in red ink.

You are clearly confusing the author's obvious intent to entertain with humorous language with a perceived attempt to impress the reader with it's vocabulary.

He's not trying to impress or intimidate you, he's trying to amuse you  - while making his points at the same time.  It's not meant to be a serious, sober essay.  It's meant to be a humorous essay on what is otherwise a serious topic.

And it is humorous. It's funny and entertaining, at least to those who appreciate his intent and are sympathetic to his perspective. 

Had you turned in such an essay in English class, it would have been appreciated for it's humorous style.  Had it been written at a 6th grade vocabulary level, without the style, it would have been boring instead of entertaining.

I think your real issue is you don't agree with his actual points, so you fail to see the humor he uses in addressing them.  He is (very effectively) making fun of ranting, cable talk shows - particularly Fox - and you probably don't like that either.

 

[Mims44 1,872]

On 5/17/2019 at 8:45 AM, homersapien said:

Our freedom is secured by political involvement.    Our safety does not depend on assault weapons - a shotgun or revolver does just fine. 

 

Oh, I actually meant it the opposite way around.

More safety = we take away firearms, knives, easy ways to make explosives.

More freedom = everyone can get anything they want.

 

Most people don't want to go with complete safety or complete freedom, so it's all a matter of where they fall between those two extremes.